Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CSPAN2 4
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
CSPAN
Nov 20, 2012 6:00am EST
at some point. the loss of credibility for ten years, it is unacceptable in the u.n. cannot define what you mean by unacceptable. those will be what will have to be applied. >> let me ask you two other questions, one narrow and won broad. >> fight that battle over whether we can negotiate or not. because we come to the point of what to do about the program and we need to demonstrate a level to find a diplomatic solution. >> negotiation -- [talking over each other] >> we cannot afford open-ended negotiation. >> the negotiation of some kind is necessary. >> whichever option you favor. this >> let me go northwest to syria. syria was discussed in the presidential campaign but the more it was discussed there and less difference there seemed to be between the two candidate. it came down to should we be arming the opposition? let me ask that question in a broader context? should we are mccumber opposition and whenever answer to that question is what is the strategic approach to the syrian conflict that preserves or protect american interests at this stage? >> let me begin and that end. the ame
CSPAN
Nov 27, 2012 6:00am EST
important element, the u.n. dimension: respect for the territorial integrity and independence of iraq. so that meant that the action team could not go to nondeclared facilities. only delareed facilities could be -- declared facilities could be inspected. but then the security council formed out that right to, i would say, break the integrity to the -- [inaudible] so they were charged with nondeclared facilities and activities. of course, then it was, obviously, chemical, biological. but the beauty of these wars that it's tough sanctions system was in place. we have to have that also. but immediately when the inspection started, the sanction system was gradually released. so this was a functioning system, good behavior led also to these single sanctions. bad behavior, which happened, of course, quite frequently, some blockages and refusals, was met by some tough language from the security council. not from the israeli government or anyone, it was security council under the charter of the united nations that put that pressure. so, of course, we know that this system works extremely well. it
CSPAN
Nov 6, 2012 6:00am EST
their leader and needed help to do it and went to the u.n. to get that help. >> there were large numbers of iraqis that would have liked him overthrown -- >> there's a much more sectarian situation. >> sure it was. >> and libya was not a sectarian situation. so if you had a situation where you had support with the vast majority of the people, and you had u.n. backing so there was no way it could be tarred as a u.s.-alone, imperialistic attack to try to scoop up natural resources for yourself and cause blowback, then, yes -- >> i have seen this movie before, and hearing this talk about, oh, yeah, we're not going to bring in the exiles, and we're going to pick legitimate people in the country, and tom friedman backs it up. please. i saw it the first time. you guys were all in school the first time, but even there you probably got the idea that it didn't work out so hot. let's just let things happen the way they're going to -- let other people worry about their own countries. we have enough problems in this country. >> jim, did you have -- [applause] >> yeah. no, that's fairly similar to my
CSPAN
Nov 1, 2012 6:00am EDT
in syria. we've seen three security council vetoes by russia and china causing many to call the u.n., essentially, ineffective in this crisis. so it's been the interplay of these three factors, i would argue, that has led syria down the path that it has taken. in terms of u.s. policy, u.s. policy is based on the objective of having assad, as president obama called for, step aside. this was back in august of 2011. the problem with u.s. policy is that it has continually been at conflict with itself in terms of how to achieve that objective while also achieving or protecting u.s. national security interests in the region. namely, i would argue, very understandable concerns about, about the impact of unseating assad and the potential for massive instability across the region. so at the crux of u.s. policy on syria, i would argue, has resided this tension of wanting assad to go but being concerned and fearful about how to achieve that objective while also seeking to maintain stability in such a volatile region of the world. now, the debate right now on syria is focused largely on this qu
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4